Russell Brand.

[Colonel_Klinck]

I have no problem whatsoever with a 30 yo having lawful, consensual sex with a 16 yo. Not everything is exploitation.

Damn. You know 16 is a child right? Any 30 year old having sex with a child is exploitational. There is a reason why we don't let 16 and 17 year olds vote, drink, fight in the armed forces or do many things we allow adults to do and its because they are mentally and emotionally immature. Its not like the age of consent was lowered to 16, it was raised from 13 in 1885. I would raise it to 18 unless they are both 21 or younger. Children should be protected from such people preying on them, because that is what it is.

 

[jigger]

So what would you do to them? Sounds more like you’re willing to break the law rather than them. A 30 odd year old going out with a 16 year old raises some moral questions but it’s not “unacceptable”.

A creepy AF promiscuous 30 year old with a taste for young girls propositioning my daughter? What would you do?

 

[jigger]

Do you care to read about the thousands of cases likely going through the courts now?

Nah you only care about some celebrity you don't like.

If you think tabloid press is a good thing then that's your choice. Fine by me. But in my eyes their whole phone tapping and history of overstepping the mark makes me think less of them.

Good investigative journalism is on its arse anyway. 90% of crap on news sites is just regurgitated stories they picked up from social media. They never even leave the office.

Nah, I just don’t think it’s a sound argument.

 

[Ayahuasca]

A creepy AF promiscuous 30 year old with a taste for young girls propositioning my daughter? What you do?

I wouldn’t do anything as it’s your daughter. I’m asking how you’d deal with it?

Are you going to lock her away or politely ask Russell, the guy who can’t be told no to stop?

 

[Hedge]

Damn. You know 16 is a child right? Any 30 year old having sex with a child is exploitational. There is a reason why we don't let 16 and 17 year olds vote, drink, fight in the armed forces or do many things we allow adults to do and its because they are mentally and emotionally immature. Its not like the age of consent was lowered to 16, it was raised from 13 in 1885. I would raise it to 18 unless they are both 21 or younger. Children should be protected from such people preying on them, because that is what it is.

You should campaign to change the law.

Put your passion to good use. Put your head above the parapet.

Go on. Russell Brand could be your fuel.

 

[Dis86]

Damn. You know 16 is a child right? Any 30 year old having sex with a child is exploitational. There is a reason why we don't let 16 and 17 year olds vote, drink, fight in the armed forces or do many things we allow adults to do and its because they are mentally and emotionally immature. Its not like the age of consent was lowered to 16, it was raised from 13 in 1885. I would raise it to 18 unless they are both 21 or younger. Children should be protected from such people preying on them, because that is what it is.

Aren't you a massive europhile? You'll lose your crap if you look at the ages of consent throughout most of Europe, and the world infact!

 

[jigger]

I wouldn’t do anything as it’s your daughter. I’m asking how you’d deal with it?

What do you think I should do?

 

[Hedge]

What do you think I should do?

Stop posting maybe

 

[Ayahuasca]

What do you think I should do?

Why don’t you just let us know what you’d do instead of avoiding the question?

 

[Dis86]

Why don’t you just let us know what you’d do instead of avoiding the question?

Its strange the lengths he's going to, isn't it?

 

[FoxEye]

But that’s not the question. I suppose what I saying is I wouldn’t judge someone for disagreeing with a 30 year man messing with a 16 year old girl. Especially if that man acted as Russell Brand has. I’d actually agree with them.

That's fine. Not saying anybody should like him or his behaviour. He's never going to make Archbishop, that's for sure.

And yeah, you'd strongly discourage your daughter from having anything to do with him. That's a given. Probably.

But that was well-known long, long ago. What's new is the media feeding frenzy, containing serious criminal accusations that have yet to be tested in any court of law.

This culture of "name and shame, allege criminality and set your own standards for proof" is utterly wrong. The investigations are there to make stories, to drive subscriptions. It's not about justice. They didn't hand their evidence to the prosecution and wait for the trial. They never do.

The media's standard for "proof" is way, way below anything that offers protection to the innocent. The media want stories and will happily destroy anyone - anyone - in the process.

The consequences for the news agencies are not nearly serious enough, as they keep running these stories, and even when it turns out they seriously libelled someone they don't have any incentive to change their ways. They get a slap on the wrist and find someone else to go after.

 

[jigger]

Why don’t you just let us know what you’d do instead of avoiding the question?

I’ve already said. Why do you keep asking?

 

[Ayahuasca]

I’ve already said. Why do you keep asking?

You haven’t said how you’d deal with it, other than you’d “disagree with them”.

I’m not even on Brand’s side with this and I’d hate to be put in that situation myself as a father. However, I don’t think it’s as easy to deal with as people think without potentially breaking the law yourself.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

It wasn't 99.9%. The claim was made that 26% are successfully prosecuted and that indicates failure.

What % of allegations are true? What % indicates justice is being served?

Its 98%. There is a 2% conviction rate.

 

[jigger]

That's fine. Not saying anybody should like him or his behaviour. He's never going to make Archbishop, that's for sure.

And yeah, you'd strongly discourage your daughter from having anything to do with him. That's a given. Probably.

But that was well-known long, long ago. What's new is the media feeding frenzy, containing serious criminal accusations that have yet to be tested in any court of law.

This culture of "name and shame, allege criminality and set your own standards for proof" is utterly wrong. The investigations are there to make stories, to drive subscriptions. It's not about justice. They didn't hand their evidence to the prosecution and wait for the trial. They never do.

The media's standard for "proof" is way, way below anything that offers protection to the innocent. The media want stories and will happily destroy anyone - anyone - in the process.

The consequences for the news agencies are not nearly serious enough, as they keep running these stories, and even when it turns out they seriously libelled someone they don't have any incentive to change their ways. They get a slap on the wrist and find someone else to go after.

Well we do have plenty of legal remedies for exactly these issues. I don’t think gagging the press would do anything to better public interest TBH.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I did. It's enlightening. Like I said, fill your boots and you'll see why it's so hard to secure rape convictions when there are sources of doubt.

Ah so what did you take from it. I've read it but you posted it in support of your claim.

 

[Dis86]

Ah so what did you take from it. I've read it but you posted it in support of your claim.

It points out exactly what I said, that conviction rates suck in part because sources of doubt are heavily weighted. It goes on to list a good number of them.

 

[FoxEye]

Aren't you a massive europhile? You'll lose your crap if you look at the ages of consent throughout most of Europe, and the world infact!

There was a Home Office study and report in the 70s suggesting to lower it again. And more recently discussions to lower it driven by biological data on puberty.

This would never pass as it's highly politicised and most people think 16 is young enough, or strikes a decent balance between safeguarding and reality on the ground (kids are having sex at 12 these days).

But there's probably less support for raising it than people think.

Maybe there would be support, certainly among the puritans, for enshrining maximum age gaps between partners. Again, they'd best get campaigning. I actually don't think they'd succeed. Not enough people want to interfere in the lives of others for no good reason.

 

[Dis86]

There was a Home Office study and report in the 70s suggesting to lower it again. And more recently discussions to lower it driven by biological data on puberty.

This would never pass as it's highly politicised and most people think 16 is young enough, or strikes a decent balance between safeguarding and reality on the ground (kids are having sex at 12 these days).

But there's probably less support for raising it than people think.

Maybe there would be support, certainly among the puritans, for enshrining maximum age gaps between partners. Again, they'd best get campaigning. I actually don't think they'd succeed. Not enough people want to interfere in the lives of others for no good reason.

Yet weirdly I'm sure some of these people have no qualms about the trans-agenda of treating children with hormones to alter their physical attributes.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Aren't you a massive europhile? You'll lose your crap if you look at the ages of consent throughout most of Europe, and the world infact!

Oh so because somewhere might have 1 law I think should be changed that means I can't like anything about it? Many of these laws like our own go back over 100 years. Laws can be updated.